Since I myself served on a public school board, I know what it is like to be in a room with a potential lynch mob. Probably the board had more important things to do (like teaching kids to read, write, do math, and think critically) than spend the next year defending my essay to a lunatic who believes that Jesus rose from the dead, that God wrote the U.S. Constitution, and that democracy is a bad thing. The link had already been removed, and the Board said it had been a mistake all along.

…

I think America: Democracy or Republic? stands up to criticism pretty well. That is why American fascists hate it. It does take a pro-democracy position, but the framework is factual. I think conservatives are correct in saying that the U.S. Constitution established an undemocratic republic. What is scary about a tiny-but-vocal minority of conservatives is that they advocate returning to a republic where only people owning substantial amounts of property (and even then not women or non-Europeans) would be allowed to vote.

The framework is factual? Our Founding Fathers were “predatory elitists”? They were only in the Revolutionary War to enrich themselves??? I think not.

To clarify his comments about Christ being a vampire he explains that it is satire to show the “nuttiness” of other people that such a thing as the real Jesus story could happen.

There is always a danger when you use irony or write satire that you will be mistaken for the nut case, rather than the guy who is illustrating the nuttiness of other people. I accept that. Vampires or Gods? is written in the style of a serious, non-fiction book, which is why it is such a good satire.

14 Responses to “Bill Meyers Responds to Susan’s Email”

Far from elitist, the founding fathers were wise to take from among the most responsible of them to make laws that would bless the least of them. Almost ALL of them lost EVERYTHING in order to give the nation a foundation of security. If this is selfishness, the world needs more of it! I'm not so sure we have improved the policy by not requiring some land ownership to vote- or at least some ability to show that we are responsible citizens! Now that we let just about everyone vote- people on welfare, people that don't feel any responsibility to provide, just to subsist on the work of others. what kind of policies do they vote for? They vote to give themselves more and more while taking less and less responsibility. Where does this lead? To where we are today- on the brink of financial and moral disaster. While customs of the day were perhaps imperfect, I'm not so sure we have not bent too far in the opposite direction. It is not giving a good gift to allow our country to be undermined by unsound principles. It will hurt all of us. That is why seeing this clearly matters. That is why a republic is more sound than a complete democracy. People that are more responsible are going to be less impulsive than people that just want a quick handout.

We all pass-away in this life. We will all discover who understood the truth about Jesus Christ and who did not after our passing. But, for now, it's true we believers in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as one who was resurrected from the dead believe on faith. It's something we can't see, but something we believe. We know many witnessed Him as a resurrected being as there is testimony to that fact in the Bible. Many things require faith. For example, I can not see Bill Meyers brain, nor can I touch it, nor can I smell it, nor can I taste it (yeccch), so how can I know if he has a brain? We gave to go on faith that he has a brain, and so I excercise that faith despite what he says and believe that Mr. Meyers must have a brain even though he must believe that DNA happened by accident since he doesn't believe in God as a Creator of life.

It is painfully obvious that Bill Meyer has served on a public school board. It is almost laughable, but too sad that we are supposed to believe his goal was to make sure children can read and write and do math, let alone be capable of critical thinking. He is merely confirming what has been said. He has no understanding or respect for our nations history, constitution, nor intended form of government and he is more than willing to advance his opinions in the schools, and his agenda in the nation's government, force-funded by the people he scorns. I don't think he is a nut case. I think he is very calculating and deadly serious.

You write, “They were only in the Revolutionary War to enrich themselves??? I think not.”

Meyers suggests no such thing. The motives of the revolution and the superstructures of the government established in its wake are ENTIRELY SEPARATE QUESTIONS. I don't necessarily agree with all that Meyers says, but you're not going to persuade me, or any other critical reader, of the virtue of your causes by obfuscating the statements of those you condemn.

It seems to me he is decidely non-Christian and doesn't understand the nature or imperatives of the Founding Fathers and why they sought to establish a Republic. Yet, he has a superior attitude, as if his understanding goes beyond that of Christians, the historical documents, and the grassroots concerns of today.

Meyers implies in his writing that the foundation of our Republic is flawed because of the supposed greed of the founding fathers. So, while I agree that the motives and the outcome are separate issues. Meyers would like to have us believe that they are tied together.

And just to clarify my position. The miracle of our Constituaion and the Republic it creates, is that it takes advantage of the motives that drive the natural man in order to benefit the entire society, IF we allow the rule of law to hold sway. A democracy does not accomplish this since a democracy allows the majority to gratify the desires of the natural man at the expense of the rest of society.

I appreciate your clarification, and find your position on the Constitution entirely reasonable. However, you are missing my basic point that the Revolutionary War and the framing of the Constitution were separate events, and that no one participating in the revolution was sure about what type of government would be formed afterwords, not even the founding fathers. Meyers is /not/ saying that the founding fathers separated from Great Britain in order to grab power; he /is/ saying that there were subsequent power grabs during the Constitutional Convention. And while I differ with his extreme statement and distortion of the matter, it does seem clearly to be the case that there was self-interested squabbling and struggling at our government's birth, as there has been at most such moments in history. There is no sense in reifying your admiration of the framers of the Constitution.

This kind of Ultra-conservative view of the constitution was already defeated during the Civil War. The U.S.A. was changed forever from that event. You people are really trying to say we need to undue the effects of the Civil War. You lost that war; get over it. Do you people think too that Christ's teachings aren't true if we are Democracy and not a Republic anymore? Does that mean that Christ's teachings only apply to our country? That is how your arguments are coming across to me. I guess then the LDS needs to have its missionaries not only teach the gospel but also teach about the holy Republic. Only then will the people of the world be saved and have the opportunity to go to heaven. Apparently if we are a Democracy there is no heaven in our future.

Ted, I suggest you actually read the petition. It's hardly ultra-conservative and nobody is bringing LDS or Christian theology into this. The petition is just to recognize that we're losing our roots, and those roots are the basis of our freedoms.

“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1790

Oak, This entire website screams ultra-conservatism. Apparently you are misinformed about the word 'conservative'. You are asking our school district and nation to return to a time period from the past. Your views clearly show a desire to throw out everything in our history since the creation of the constitution and return to what you believe was the original intent of that document. To resist change over time is as conservative as you can be in your views of the world. Most conservatives in our nation would not support such a drastic belief- hence I call this movement ultra-conservative. As to your petition, I cannot help but feel that this was passed around at an Eagle Forum (an ultra-conservative group) congregation based on the signatures you have received so far.It seems to me that you are also trying to really create the age-old argument of being a Federalist nation or an anti-Federalist nation. This issue was settled by the end of the Civil War; which is why I made reference to it before. You seem to be arguing that we need to pretend that event never happened and go back to how the country should be. Everything changes over time. for better and worse. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why this country became more of a Federalist nation than it started out? To believe that the views of the founding fathers would be perfect for our world today is naive of you. I am also wondering, based on your petition, how you plan on not confusing our children between the US Republic and other modern day republics: USSR, China, Iran, North Korea. Also, shouldn't our students understand the problems with a Republic government? I only ask because ancient Rome had the best republic ever and look how it fell apart. Maybe the corruption and self-interest of a Republic is why our country has chosen to view the constitution as a 'living document' (which your petition crosses out) and that its meanings would have to change over time as the country grew in size, population, and wealth. Using quotes from the the founding fathers doesn't actually make your argument stronger either, those men would have very different views if they were in the globalized world we live in today.

Ted, it appears that your best tactic in this debate is to label and name-call those who want to have correct and stable (unchanging) definitions, so people are not manipulated into accepting a government they don't want.

We have a real problem of creeping socialism. It has been promoted by so called “progressivists” sometimes unwittingly, sometimes consciously. This has been done in part by appealing to the masses with terms misused to confuse in order to establish this socialism. The term “republic” has also been misused by dictators to whitewash what they are doing – which isn't much different than socialism. Socialism and Fascism are very similar. They are not opposites as progressivists promote. A republic is NOT fascist either, as progressivists would also like to suggest. Those promoting a return to the correct use of the word are trying to make things clearer. Those opposing it, like Ted, sound more like the obstructionist definition they have tied to the term “conservative.” They want to continue our road to socialism and government control of everyone. They don't want to change this downward path. In deed the old, 1700-1800's, definition of “liberal” would more correctly describe those called conservatives today.

This issue has nothing to do with the Civil War. It did not outlaw our republic. You infer that the South was the “old” republic and the North was somehow a “democracy.” That is ridiculous! The North had the same government as the South. Neither were democracies, and the Civil War did not turn us into a democracy.

It is interesting you refer to the term Federalist, because it was misused also. The meaning is one who promoted the Constitutional form of tying the state republics together. Another way to describe the term federal is to contrast it with the word national. A federal government was a government with smaller republics tied together. A national government is one where the national government controls everything. The term “Federalist” was misused to accuse political enemies of being for a “nationalist” government.

Today progressivists are nationalists. They want everything consolidated under the “federal” government. True federalists want to return to the balance between the states and the national government in order to preserve this form of government. As Rome grew, it did not divide itself into smaller republics, like states, to allow the common people to learn self government. THAT is why it fell, not because it was originally a type of republic – and it was NOT the “best republic ever… either.”

If you want to call this movement “ultra-conservative” then the founding fathers should also be called “ultra-conservative”. I don't like the term, because it confuses the issue. Is our form of government as set up by the Constitution a republic? YES! Then let's call it that. And these people have a right to bring up the debate without being demeaned in doing so.

Fisher Ames, the Constitutional Convention legislator responsible for the wording of the First Amendment, which is usually cited as the source for Separation of Church and State pronouncements, but in which the phrase is absent, did enter the phrase “free exercise of religion” into our constitutional language and protections. He also recommended the Bible as the key textbook for all schools.

“Fisher Ames was born in Dedham, Massachusetts on April 9th, 1758 and at 50 years of age, he died on July 4, 1808. He graduated from Harvard College in 1774 and taught school for five years before turning to law, and in 1781 he was admitted to the bar. Ames was elected president of Harvard in 1804 at age 46, but had to decline because of declining health. “Historically, Fisher Ames is best known for his opposition to Jeffersonian democracy. He favored a constitutional republic. Ames said, “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” Further, he stated that, “Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism.” (“Alas, republics decline into democracy and democracies degenerate into despotism.” Aristotle) In fact he believed that it was “democracy that pollutes the morals of the people before it swallows up their freedoms.” For a pure democracy, he argued, would lend itself to the new nation’s coming under the influence of the basest of human motivations: greed and a lack of public virtue. Ames believed that “the United States must lash itself to a constitution of laws, not the whim of democratic preference.”

Fisher Ames, the Constitutional Convention legislator responsible for the wording of the First Amendment, which is usually cited as the source for Separation of Church and State pronouncements, but in which the phrase is absent, did enter the phrase “free exercise of religion” into our constitutional language and protections. He also recommended the Bible as the key textbook for all schools.

“Fisher Ames was born in Dedham, Massachusetts on April 9th, 1758 and at 50 years of age, he died on July 4, 1808. He graduated from Harvard College in 1774 and taught school for five years before turning to law, and in 1781 he was admitted to the bar. Ames was elected president of Harvard in 1804 at age 46, but had to decline because of declining health. “Historically, Fisher Ames is best known for his opposition to Jeffersonian democracy. He favored a constitutional republic. Ames said, “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” Further, he stated that, “Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism.” (“Alas, republics decline into democracy and democracies degenerate into despotism.” Aristotle) In fact he believed that it was “democracy that pollutes the morals of the people before it swallows up their freedoms.” For a pure democracy, he argued, would lend itself to the new nation’s coming under the influence of the basest of human motivations: greed and a lack of public virtue. Ames believed that “the United States must lash itself to a constitution of laws, not the whim of democratic preference.”